I do it as described. Added my own presentation, but I can't see any reason to use a NW. It's always in my wallet, so I've used it in close-up situations and also use it in my stand up performances, many times as a lead in to my variation of The 75,000 Test.

Themagicofcurtis wrote:I think for a more intelligent crowd one should use a (secret) writer... I mean to get one soon

Jim Callahan/Jack Galloway is just bored and decided to come trolling over here for his friend Blues Brother impersonator Dave Koenig/Slim King. Dave claims to do mentalism "for real", so I don't know why he wants to hang around with a bunch of magicians over at the Magic Talk forums.

Bill & Richard did a fine job with the cards and the DVD. There are a lot of things you can do on your own, but sometimes you have to factor in the cost of your time and ultimately it's cheaper to buy it.

Add to that, Bill Abbott & Richard Sanders are two of the most creative and nicest guys in the business, so I have no problem supporting them by buying their products.

The calculator principle has been disguised over the years. Docc Hilford has a funny version on his Monster Mentalism DVDs called Jailbait.

Brian ONeil published the idea of combining 'the impeneterable secret' principle with lotto cards years ago - with a much more subtle implementation of its use.

Though abbott states emphatically on the cafe that powerball was created, designed, printed, and shipped without any knowledge of sources not mentioned in their instructions (and then ran away with the 'and that's the last thing I will say on the matter'), I have seen documents from people who prefer to stay out of the public controversy which establish that richard sanders was made aware of ONeil's published effect prior to the items release. I have also been told (hearsay, I know) that sanders expressed great reluctance at the notion of mentioning ONeil.

I didn't know about that situation, only the situation the Dave Koenig claimed that his idea was first and stolen. Although he did put his idea on the old MagicTalk.com forum, it was apparently posted in a secure area that you had to be invited into. I don't know if Bill or Richard were members there or had access to that area. However what Koenig released was only a couple of months prior to the release of PowerBall60. But Bill & Richard already had prototypes of the scratch-off tickets before Koenig released his version.

Oneil's trick was released years prior and the documents where they were informed were dated several months prior to shipment to distributers and reference it as an idea they are thinking about releasing. The idea is not exact, but very close. Nevertheless, it was a creepy thing to do to willfully omit this part of the published record, and to defiantly claim otherwise.

I do not know either man. But that behavior does not strike me as 'nice'.

I can appreciate your wanting to set the public record straight, but if you're going to have a problem with what they may have done, why don't you contact them directly instead of going off of what other people have told you?

It's not really your fight and if it's a cause you're going to take up, which you are by continuing to try and contradict my statements, then drop them an email and get their side of the story directly. They know who you are and would be more than willing to talk to you about it. I can understand them not wanting to get into a pissing match on The Cafe.

But jeez, either let it go or back it up with something other than second hand information.

I have seen the first source documentation. And as you know, steve, issues of ethics and crediting almost never are resolved privately. It is only when the issues are made public that action can occur.

Remember, they WERE contacted privately by the individual to whom I refer. We see how well that worked out.

However, I have set the record straight in print. I still have the right to hold an opinion contrary to yours that these are 'nice' people. In magic, a lot of 'nice' people get passes when doing wrong things. To me, their pleasantness as people are irrelevant. But in truth, magicians tend to give the 'nice' nod to those who sell them secrets. The hurdle is not very high.

But to the point, this 'nice person' you identify made an emphatic statement on the cafe, ran away, and then all subsequent posts attempting to establish the historical record were deleted.

It's interesting that you are only bringing this up here. There is a 9 month long, 24 page thread on The Cafe, and you didn't mention it there. Why is that? Did you just find out about it? The thread is locked now, but was only locked just over a month ago. You're expecting them to argue on The Cafe, why didn't you?

Fair you ask? No. If you want to sit on your high horse, then ride it up to Canada, drop an email to these guys and get it straight from them.

I don't really see either one of them posting here, so maybe it's safer for you here then it is there. Why haven't you raised this at The Cafe?

I don't read Magic, so I never saw the review. However I still stand by what I wrote earlier and that is he should have contacted them directly and not relied on second hand information.

I too am curious about Brian's version. I never heard of it and am wondering if it's something that was commercially available. Was it written up in a book or lecture notes? When was it released?

So we have an old principle here that 3 creators adapted and gave a lottery theme to. I don't know what Dave Koenig created because it was in a secure area of MagicTalk when I found out about it. There may have been a time when he was offering it, but you have to email him or something. I honestly don't remember.

So since Callahan is reading this topic maybe he can shed some light on Dave's version and Brad on Brian's version.

It seems like there are a couple of ways to do this. The first is picking your own numbers and getting several official lottery tickets. The other is to design your own tickets and do what Bill & Richard did and make them scratch off tickets.

Callahan,

Here's a question - did Dave contact Brian before he released his version?

The TRUTH is this, Bill & Richard already had prototypes of the scratch off cards in the hand of several magicians BEFORE Dave released his version. Just because Dave was selling his first, doesn't mean it was his concept first and personally don't feel it was up to them to include any sort of credit to Koenig.

So what are the accusations here? Is this a case of independent creation by four people or are both Brian & Dave accusing Bill & Richard of theft? Or are some people just getting cranky because a credit was not included?

But Pix, you're correct about the world of commercial magic. It "ain't" pretty sometimes.

Steve, others brought it up on the cafe. I shared the information I had. That information was removed and then the topic locked. I would have been THRILLED to have had the discussion occur there. But 'nice guys' tend to have the upperhand in that venue, it seems. Afterall, how many there are willing to bite the hands that feed them - even when the food is taken from someone else's table.
so, nice try.

Second, one of the magicians who had prototypes in their hands WAS the person who informed them of oneil's precedant. So, this isn't a last minute human error that crept in. This was a wilful attempt to hide a credit which was due. Nice people?

And please do not dismiss my information as second hand. I have seen the documents sent, dated, which inform sanders/abbott of the previous credit long before the product went to market.

Strike three?

And this was done via private channels, as per your suggestion. You can see how well that worked out for the record.

Nail in the coffin?

Bill Abbott and Richard Sanders were informed of ONeil's trick (in private) long in advance of their release of powerball 60. They chose to omit his contribution for their list of credits and previous lineage. If being concerned about that means I'm riding a high horse, all I have to say is 'giddy up.'

Then, Bill Abbot made a statement on the cafe which, if not an outright lie, was (it seems) intentionally misleading. All previous attempts to set the record straight, and further attempts to continue the discussion on the cafe were deleted and the topic closed.

I am glad these people are your friends. I am sorry your friends did something scummy.

I wasn't the one who wilfully ommitted someone contribution for the historical record - they did.

You can continue attacking me if you like, but your indignation is woefully misplaced.

What was the O'Neill effect? Was it a lottery ticket where you picked the numbers and had several offical Powerball tickets, like what Koenig was marketing or was it a scratch-off ticket as in PowerBall 60?

When did he release it? I'm not doubting O'Neill released his first, but let's get the history here, considering that Koenig also implied theft.

So far what I've been able to piece together, this seems like independent creation by all parties involved, with the O'Neill version and the Koenig version being the same (or at least very similar). Powerball 60 went another direction with the type of tickets being used.

And that's the other question, is theft being implied or is it a crediting issue?

This is not a discussion I particularly want to get involved in. I had just bought Powerball 60 last week and am very pleased with it.

Jim, the information was not sent to me by Brian O'Neill who I do not know and have never had contact with, but by a GENII forum member. He may well contact you.

I know nothing about the Dave Koenig effect other than what has been posted above.

It's more than likely that all three are independent development. I have the greatest admiration for Richard Sanders and Bill Abbott. Their creativity and products must surely be in the top 10% of the magical marketplace. It's also obvious by looking at the Powerball 60 cards that it didn't happen overnight.

If, as would seem the case, they were made aware of previous incarnations prior to the release of Powerball 60, I think they were foolish not to acknowledge this. It would not have detracted from their product.

I agree that it wouldn't have detracted from their product, but I also feel it shouldn't detract anyone from recommending it.

You're correct, it's obvious this product didn't happen overnight. The tickets are great, they look like the real thing. Plus they added a feature that you really can't add to official Powerball tickets, which is you don't need to see the front of the tickets to determine the number. You can be several feet away with the backs of the tickets toward you and still know what the number is.

The DVD and PDF manuscript were well thought out. There are presentation ideas, outs and handling suggestions. Again, not put together overnight.

To go back to The Cafe and read the suggestions of Dave Koenig, you would have sworn they discovered his idea, tweaked it a bit and put it out quickly in an effort to overshadow his product.

While Callahan suggests it was available publicly on MagicTalk, the first mention of it on The Cafe was that it was in a private area.

Prototypes were seen months before ever hearing about Koenig's product and if that wasn't good enough, the domain name Powerball60.com was registered a year prior to Dave making any sort of post on a magic forum about his Powerball effect.

Brad wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this because he feels Bill & Richard didn't act in an ethical manner - something that they have never been accused of in the past. No need to enter the slippery slope of ethics here because it means something different to everyone. Personally I don't need a history lesson with every effect I purchase. If it were a derivative of someone's prior work, then I would agree the credit should be included.

What O'Neill created didn't influence their work. They created everything independently and have produced a different version of what was created previously. If Brad has evidence to the contrary, that they did know of the O'Neill version prior to creating Powerball 60, then I'm sure we'd like to know about it. I still wouldn't condemn them for it because they have taken it in another direction, but again, I would agree the credit should have been included.

All Brad has eluded to is that they were made aware of the O'Neill version before they started marketing it and I'm sure many don't see a problem with what they've done.

And just for the record Brad, neither of these guys are friends of mine as you have suggested. If you're going to be the "truth teller" get your facts straight. I've used their material in my performances for several years. I'm a fan of their work and the limited interaction I've had with them prompted my characterization of them as nice guys. An opinion that hasn't changed.

Steve, I will just add a couple of points. Brain O'Neill has a way of knowing which ticket is which without looking at the numbers. It's different from the Powerball 60 method which is similar to a Larry Becker idea previously used with Zip codes.

Irv Weiner had an entirely different method whereby you could work out the "necessary" from across the room.

(I wish someone would put out a compilation of Irv Weiner's material).

Actually, I believe Phil Willmarth has them and has been working on a book for some time. I spoke with both Phil and Anthony Brahams who did some work on it and hoped to see it hit print one day (reminds me, I need to touch base with Phil, it has been too long since we spoke last)...

Irv signed an agreement with Phil Willmarth and myself to produce a book of his magic and Phil made a payment to him and had many effects typed out. I have a huge database of Irv's dealer items,magazine and book references, items he showed me etc.

I have not heard of L&L being involved. However I have been unable to reach Phil by e-mail so if he, or anyone who has his current address, reads this would they please send it to me. Earlier this year I sent him two e-mails, and Robbie one, not about Irv, and had no reply. Thanks.

You claim these people are 'nice guys' yet they willfully omitted a name from the historical record - a record they chose to include in their product - seemingly because one idea was a little too close to the one they were trying to sell. If this were a case of accidentally ommitting an obscure credit, I would not fault them for anything. But that's not the case. This is a situation where someone solicited information about the originality of their idea, were told it was derivative, and then when voluntarily offering the history of ideas leading up to their product, intentionally ommited part of it - a part of which they were explicitly made aware of well in advance of publication.

Theft? No

Unethical? Maybe

Nice guy? No freaking way

(Though, there is reason to believe that what we tend to think of as 'theft' may have occured, but I have not seen a paper trail yet.)

As to contacting them privately, I am sure oneil would love to talk with them. Perhaps you can encourage your nice guy non-friends to follow up on his attempts to bring this to closure.

Threatening lawsuits for sharing one's side of a story would not really be returning a call though, would it?

Nice, guys.

I wonder, steve, if one would be as cavalier of dismissing these ' non-desired history lessons' if it were YOUR baby being thrown out with that bathwater.

It appears as if oneil has taken a cue from farmer and his pdf is now available for free.
Personally, I feel we should all stand up for the preservation of the historical record. I find myself troubled by those who seem willing to dismiss it so readily.

Do you have any connection to the product steve? Knowing the date of a registered website seems odd for someone unaffiliated. Defending the willful ommision of someone's idea seems callous, at best. Regardless, to clarify, I know oNeil (we are acquaintances) but have no stake in the matter other than in caring about the record and having a general sense of concern when anyone's ideas are marginalized (especially, intentionally) in the process of selling boatloads of product to chirping birds eager to swallow anything new - regardless from whence it rightfully came.

Is being a nice guy going to be your new criteria for reviewing products? You've already said it wasn't theft and may not be unethical.

I have no stake in this product. How did I know about when the website was registered? Bill stated it on The Cafe thread when Koenig was accusing him of theft. It was a simple thing to verify, which I did.

If O'Neill wants to give his routine away, good for him. The method isn't his creation. I wonder what his reason is for giving it away?

What Powerball 60 offered was another way to present an old method that didn't duplicate anything prior. Since the effect was released I would imagine the majority of customers already knew the secret, they just wanted the scratch off cards and Bill & Richards thoughts on the handling.

For being the self-proclaimed truth teller, you are certainly willing to skip some steps to find the truth. As I've stated a couple of times my interaction with them has been fine. They were nice guys to me. You seem to have a problem with that, and maybe I should change my mind about them being nice.

I've had interactions with other known names in the business who other people consider nice guys and found them to be rude. So are those people who consider them nice wrong because of the experience I had?

I have a couple of friends, well known names that you would all recognize, who don't don't really care for each other. If I were to only listen to one or the other and believe them, just based on their experience, then I would be missing out. If Friend A & Friend B don't get along, that's their problem, but I'm not going to let it compromise anything where I'm concerned.

According to you Brad, you haven't even contacted these guys. You're going off of another person's experience. The truth teller is only getting one side of the story. Seeing documents is one thing, why don't you make a connection and call them instead.

Considering you're only offering vague second-hand hearsay, it's difficult to continue to have a discussion about this. It's impossible anyway because you see ethics as a black and white issue. If someone doesn't agree 100% with your perception of what ethical is then they must be an unethical person and doing something wrong.

No steve, I do not see things as black and white. Hence my use of the word maybe, which you willingly use in one accusation yet ignore in another. (And please, the children at the cafe try to play the 'let's mock the name truthteller' card - I thought you would be above that. There is a story behind that name. Perhaps I will share it with you one day. But let's keep this about the issue - shall we, steve?)

In my mind, what they did is completely unethical. And I have seen enough documentation and spoken to first hand sources to coorborate that to my satisfaction. I have also been priveldge to information, which has enough anecdotal evidence AND corresponds to other actions made by certain individuals in the past that suggests to me that this goes well beyond merely leaving out a credit to actual 'I saw you do this so now this is what we are going to do' by people in the pipeline.

But, this is not my first rodeo. And when one hears threats of lawsuits being tossed about when a creator is merely trying to tell his side of the story - I think you can see the wisdom in carefully choosing one's words.

Yes, the secret is old. Are you suggesting that it would be ok to market Chad Long's brilliant routine where the cards tell the spectator where to look simply because the double lift is old? Can we all sell paddles out of usb drives since the paddle move is old? I suppose putting out a dvd of armando"s matrix is fair game - he didn't invent either the effect and those coin sleight date back to discoverie. And I suppose its ok to for someone to sell all the origami's they can build since okito exploited the same concealment principle decades ago.

Seems to me that the difference between a good idea and a great idea often has nothing to do with the secret but with the tiny touches and lines that make the trick interesting and relevant.

Afterall, there are dozens of versions of the impeneterable secret out there, but only one of them seems to be selling like hot cakes.

That one happened to make the brilliant leap of doing it with lotto tickets.

A brilliant leap made by brian Oneil.

Doesn't that deserve credit - especially when YOU KNEW ABOUT IT before you sold your johnny come lately idea to the suc--- masses.

What if someone saw you do it years ago and you even had suggested to them that you were considering making it up in scratch offs?

And pleae - why should it matter who posts when wrong doing occurs? I see something I feel is wrong and I say something. I was taught that's what nice people do. Your boys heard about the source privately and we see how well that worked out. ONeil has reached out to them, and apparently they refuse to follow up. Seldom, in magic, do issues of this nature get resolved without them being brought to public attention. As the printed record is a publicly shared resource, it is important that these issues be brought to light.

But Hey - if you're cool with someone having his great idea intentionally ripped from the history books - then I guess we know what we need to know.

This thread has been up since February and although it was quiet until recently, you didn't comment on it until I said that Bill & Richard were nice guys. THAT is what the real issue is.

It seems that you have a personal problem with them, on some level, because you didn't speak up about this until I made that comment.

What I find pathetic about this situation is you had no idea of what my relationship was with them before you made your rude and sarcastic comments about people you admit you didn't contact.

For all you knew we were all best friends and they gave me money for a my cat's life-saving operation. You didn't know and didn't care. All you knew is that a damn credit was left off of a f*&$@ng magic trick.

To say they are not nice people isn't telling the truth Brad, because the truth is that you don't know. You're making a judgment based on the most insane reason.

My God, these two guys have "distorted the historical magic record"! And in your world, the historic magic record is all that matters in determining if you're a nice guy or not. Charitable work, supporting and raising a family, respect from your peers - all that goes out the window and isn't even a consideration where you're concerned.

Of course in this screwed up industry, the opposite is also true. Neglect your wife and kids, but come up with some card tricks and get your crediting correct then you deserve all the praise you can get from your fellow magi.

If what O'Neill created was so brilliant, why didn't it spread like wildfire previously? If it were so brilliant, why isn't he selling it now?

You never seemed to have a problem selling material to the suc--- masses, why should anyone else?

(Just an FYI, if anyone is considering buying The Dance from Brad Henderson, drop me a line and I'll send you my copy to anyone in the USA free of charge.)